PC vs console graphics - PC always wins?

You know your totally right. Every sane person knows that in the late 80s and early 90s the AMIGA was the graphics king, nothing could touch the awesome power of the AMIGA!

If the AMIGA was still around to this day i promise you every single game on it would look 10x better than Crysis!

Snagal123

OMG you know of the AMIGA! *big hug*

I loved that system. Fun Fact all the CGI for Babylon 5 was done on a Amiga 4000.

[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]Not at all. Despite the PC's hardware superiority, that didn't prevent consoles from giving the PC a run for its money quite some times. Examples: Super Mario 64 was the first 3D accelerated game for home systems, Soul Calibur was the best-looking fighter in 1999 by far, Halo was the first FPS with pixel shaded effects, Gears of War was the first TPS with the Unreal Engine 3, the cars in Gran Turismo 3 and 5 Prologue looked the best in their time (even if some other racers might have had more detailed cars technically speaking), Uncharted 2 is hands-down the best-looking third-person action adventure and I could go on. So PC graphics = always superior = not true.nameless12345

People were running Quake GL in 3D accelerated long before Super Mario 64. In fact consoles didn't get 3D accelerated GPUs until Dreamcast. The first 3D accelerated GPUs would go to the PC with the original Voodoo from 3DFX. In fact all the 3D accelerated cards came on the PC, 3D FX Voodoo 1 followed by Voodoo 2, nVidia's Riva 128, ATI Rage Pro, 3D Labs Premedia 2, Rendition Verite, etc. Quake 3 running on nVidia's Geforce 256 will mop the floor with Soul Calibur back in 1999, not to mention Soul Calibur was stuck with 480i while people were playing Quake 3 in HD on the PC back then. With respect to racing games, 3D accelerated games came on the PC first with the origninal POD. Not to mention Need For Speed 2 SE using 3D FX Glide back in 1997. In fact the 90s were dominated by PC when it came to graphics, with the Quake 2 in 1997, Unreal 1 in 1998, Quake 3 in 1999. No game on the consoles could compete with the PC in the 90s primarily due to the fact that consoles almost spentthat entire decade without any 3D hardware acceleration. With respect to hardware, PC garphics is always ahead. Asof now, nothing can touch Crysis and Crysis Warhead.

That's not true, in fact, if you read the readme file of the orignial quake they talk about running in Quake GL. Which 3D accelerator card did N64 use, thats what I mean by 3D accelerator cards. And Crysis and Crysis Warhead technically worse, I don't know maybe inside closed space, but that is only on the PC version, consoles it won't even compare. Modded Crysis for sure will beat it.True about different, Quake 3 was the best looking game in 1999 though.

[QUOTE="loadedboon"]

[QUOTE="chaplainDMK"] SC doesen't look all that hot actualy because Blizzard always makes preaty "lite" games. Try Company of Heroes, Dawn of War 2 or World in Conflict on for size... Company of Heroes just looks gorgeous... That game is a feet of gaming i have yet seen beat... Fully destructable enviroments, advanced unit AI (they take cover automaticaly, dodge grenades, rockets, retreat etc.), advanced particle effects etc.

chaplainDMK

That isn't the point you said SC2 doesn't look better then Halo Wars when in reality it does look alot better compared to Halo Wars and has a lot more going on on screen compared to Halo Wars. So no Halo Wars doesn't even compare to SC2.

I agree with you that it isn't a very demanding game but saying Halo Wars comes close is just :roll::

I know there are much better looking RTS games out there on PC. But still SC2 looks amazing even though it isn't the best looking RTS out there.

Are they? Now I have'nt actually researched this but from having play all 3 games, I'd say that Metro is a lot more up to date in regards to overall quality while the enviroment is a lot more static than Crysis is. As in: Nearly nothing reacts to your presence. when a grenade detonates in Crysis, the sorrounding's get blown up. In Metro, they get a burnt texture.Filthybastrd

Why not bring up how the N64 was supposed to produce SGI like graphics (aka Toy Story like) or how the PS1 didn't have any AA to speak of in any of it's games? Closed systems may be able to temporarily catch up or maybe even surprass the open system, but the open system is always to going to catch up very rapidly or be miles ahead from the beginning.menes777

Aw gee. All that nostalgia brought a tear to my eye. :lol:

Well, here goes with the usual obligatory screenshots:

Plus since everyone expects them..... here down to 720p res

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]Are they? Now I have'nt actually researched this but from having play all 3 games, I'd say that Metro is a lot more up to date in regards to overall quality while the enviroment is a lot more static than Crysis is. As in: Nearly nothing reacts to your presence. when a grenade detonates in Crysis, the sorrounding's get blown up. In Metro, they get a burnt texture.nameless12345

Why not bring up how the N64 was supposed to produce SGI like graphics (aka Toy Story like) or how the PS1 didn't have any AA to speak of in any of it's games? Closed systems may be able to temporarily catch up or maybe even surprass the open system, but the open system is always to going to catch up very rapidly or be miles ahead from the beginning.menes777

You don't see movie quality games on the pc? Hmmm i must have dreamed playing those FMV adventures back in the day.

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]Are they? Now I have'nt actually researched this but from having play all 3 games, I'd say that Metro is a lot more up to date in regards to overall quality while the enviroment is a lot more static than Crysis is. As in: Nearly nothing reacts to your presence. when a grenade detonates in Crysis, the sorrounding's get blown up. In Metro, they get a burnt texture.nameless12345

Why not bring up how the N64 was supposed to produce SGI like graphics (aka Toy Story like) or how the PS1 didn't have any AA to speak of in any of it's games? Closed systems may be able to temporarily catch up or maybe even surprass the open system, but the open system is always to going to catch up very rapidly or be miles ahead from the beginning.menes777

Well, it's DX11 and it does look prettier but it's less impressive in action. I've could post better Half-Life 2 textures than there even exists for Crysis if I wanted to.

Edit: And character models in Metro 2033 are atrocious considering how the rest of the game looks. Just like Crysis has some really 2007 textures.

[QUOTE="Snagal123"]

You know your totally right. Every sane person knows that in the late 80s and early 90s the AMIGA was the graphics king, nothing could touch the awesome power of the AMIGA!

If the AMIGA was still around to this day i promise you every single game on it would look 10x better than Crysis!

loadedboon

OMG you know of the AMIGA! *big hug*

I loved that system. Fun Fact all the CGI for Babylon 5 was done on a Amiga 4000.

Ofc i know of the AMIGA, every self respecting gamer should know of the AMIGA!

You want to talk graphics, Shadow of the Beast was one of the first games to have parallax scrolling backdrops, and in 1989! No filthy PC could do that or console for that matter! Oh and the music, AMIGA game music is the greatest music to ever grace the earth!

Why did Commodore have to go bust?!

[QUOTE="chaplainDMK"][QUOTE="loadedboon"]

That isn't the point you said SC2 doesn't look better then Halo Wars when in reality it does look alot better compared to Halo Wars and has a lot more going on on screen compared to Halo Wars. So no Halo Wars doesn't even compare to SC2.

loadedboon

I agree with you that it isn't a very demanding game but saying Halo Wars comes close is just :roll::

I know there are much better looking RTS games out there on PC. But still SC2 looks amazing even though it isn't the best looking RTS out there.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"][QUOTE="Filthybastrd"] Well Metro 2033 is DX11 while Crysis and Crysis Warhead are DX10. So yea, it's more advanced in some ways. [QUOTE="menes777"]Why not bring up how the N64 was supposed to produce SGI like graphics (aka Toy Story like) or how the PS1 didn't have any AA to speak of in any of it's games? Closed systems may be able to temporarily catch up or maybe even surprass the open system, but the open system is always to going to catch up very rapidly or be miles ahead from the beginning.Filthybastrd

Well, it's DX11 and it does look prettier but it's less impressive in action. I've could post better Half-Life 2 textures than there even exists for Crysis if I wanted to.

Edit: And character models in Metro 2033 are atrocious considering how the rest of the game looks.

HQ Textures Cinema overhaul?

[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]Not at all. Despite the PC's hardware superiority, that didn't prevent consoles from giving the PC a run for its money quite some times. Examples: Super Mario 64 was the first 3D accelerated game for home systems, Soul Calibur was the best-looking fighter in 1999 by far, Halo was the first FPS with pixel shaded effects, Gears of War was the first TPS with the Unreal Engine 3, the cars in Gran Turismo 3 and 5 Prologue looked the best in their time (even if some other racers might have had more detailed cars technically speaking), Uncharted 2 is hands-down the best-looking third-person action adventure and I could go on. So PC graphics = always superior = not true.Filthybastrd

People were running Quake GL in 3D accelerated long before Super Mario 64. In fact consoles didn't get 3D accelerated GPUs until Dreamcast. The first 3D accelerated GPUs would go to the PC with the original Voodoo from 3DFX. In fact all the 3D accelerated cards came on the PC, 3D FX Voodoo 1 followed by Voodoo 2, nVidia's Riva 128, ATI Rage Pro, 3D Labs Premedia 2, Rendition Verite, etc. Quake 3 running on nVidia's Geforce 256 will mop the floor with Soul Calibur back in 1999, not to mention Soul Calibur was stuck with 480i while people were playing Quake 3 in HD on the PC back then. With respect to racing games, 3D accelerated games came on the PC first with the origninal POD. Not to mention Need For Speed 2 SE using 3D FX Glide back in 1997. In fact the 90s were dominated by PC when it came to graphics, with the Quake 2 in 1997, Unreal 1 in 1998, Quake 3 in 1999. No game on the consoles could compete with the PC in the 90s primarily due to the fact that consoles almost spentthat entire decade without any 3D hardware acceleration. With respect to hardware, PC garphics is always ahead. Asof now, nothing can touch Crysis and Crysis Warhead.

POD? Was that 3D accelerated? Was'nt that just the first MMX game? Maybe MMX was actually a sort of hardware 3D. Hard to recall these days :)

Yes there was a 3DFX version of POD. I believe 3DFX used it to promote their first Voodoo. Yes, you are correct, it also used Intels MMX, I remember the MMX sticker on the box. Ahaa....the nostalgia. :)

POD running in 3DFX mode:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYRPB2ssjkA

That's not true, in fact, if you read the readme file of the orignial quake they talk about running in Quake GL. Which 3D accelerator card did N64 use, thats what I mean by 3D accelerator cards. And Crysis and Crysis Warhead technically worse, I don't know maybe inside closed space, but that is only on the PC version, consoles it won't even compare. Modded Crysis for sure will beat it.True about different, Quake 3 was the best looking game in 1999 though.Xtasy26

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"] I didn't see "movie-quality" graphics on the PC either, although both, (the new defunct) ATi and nvidia claimed that on several occasions. I also believe that if they made a console out of the best current tech, it would have far better graphics than any system out now. Like I said, the PC may be the strongest, but it's bottlenecked by Windows, different hardware and stuff like that. SC2 doesn't even look all that great btw.loadedboon

Well, it's DX11 and it does look prettier but it's less impressive in action. I've could post better Half-Life 2 textures than there even exists for Crysis if I wanted to.

Edit: And character models in Metro 2033 are atrocious considering how the rest of the game looks.

HQ Textures Cinema overhaul?

Fakefactory :)

[QUOTE="chaplainDMK"][QUOTE="loadedboon"]

That isn't the point you said SC2 doesn't look better then Halo Wars when in reality it does look alot better compared to Halo Wars and has a lot more going on on screen compared to Halo Wars. So no Halo Wars doesn't even compare to SC2.

loadedboon

I agree with you that it isn't a very demanding game but saying Halo Wars comes close is just :roll::

I know there are much better looking RTS games out there on PC. But still SC2 looks amazing even though it isn't the best looking RTS out there.

LMAO Errrr no SC2 does not look alot better then Halo Wars. I can max SC 2 on a GTX285 my account is Hellrunner and no its not better looking by any means we can post a screenshots all day but its no diffrent then pc gamers coming in here and telling me NFS on pc looks as good as GT5.( LMAO )

[QUOTE="nameless12345"][QUOTE="Xtasy26"]

People were running Quake GL in 3D accelerated long before Super Mario 64. In fact consoles didn't get 3D accelerated GPUs until Dreamcast. The first 3D accelerated GPUs would go to the PC with the original Voodoo from 3DFX. In fact all the 3D accelerated cards came on the PC, 3D FX Voodoo 1 followed by Voodoo 2, nVidia's Riva 128, ATI Rage Pro, 3D Labs Premedia 2, Rendition Verite, etc. Quake 3 running on nVidia's Geforce 256 will mop the floor with Soul Calibur back in 1999, not to mention Soul Calibur was stuck with 480i while people were playing Quake 3 in HD on the PC back then. With respect to racing games, 3D accelerated games came on the PC first with the origninal POD. Not to mention Need For Speed 2 SE using 3D FX Glide back in 1997. In fact the 90s were dominated by PC when it came to graphics, with the Quake 2 in 1997, Unreal 1 in 1998, Quake 3 in 1999. No game on the consoles could compete with the PC in the 90s primarily due to the fact that consoles almost spentthat entire decade without any 3D hardware acceleration. With respect to hardware, PC garphics is always ahead. Asof now, nothing can touch Crysis and Crysis Warhead.

Xtasy26

That's not true, in fact, if you read the readme file of the orignial quake they talk about running in Quake GL. Which 3D accelerator card did N64 use, thats what I mean by 3D accelerator cards. And Crysis and Crysis Warhead technically worse, I don't know maybe inside closed space, but that is only on the PC version, consoles it won't even compare. Modded Crysis for sure will beat it.True about different, Quake 3 was the best looking game in 1999 though.

I'll look for my original Quake cd. But, I don't recall ever seeing a readme file with GLQuake being mentioned. Of course, I'm not the kind to read instruction manuals or readme files either. He He.:lol: But even if it did, GLQuake was still several months away from being released. You either put up with the slow frame rates or stuck with older VGA games like Duke Nukem 3D. I do know action games like Tomb Raider and Quake in SVGA mode were dog slow and choppy.

I remember downloading the GLQuake patch in the the first week of February 1997. I literally checked every hour to see if it had been released. Mario 64 was out with the N64 in what, August 1996?

As for 3D-acceleration, both PSX and N64 had dedicated chips for that function. The 3D-accelerator card is PC-specific and offered the same capabilities (and better) as those in the new consoles. But yes. the PC was the latecomer to widespread 3D-acceleration for games.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"][QUOTE="Filthybastrd"] Well Metro 2033 is DX11 while Crysis and Crysis Warhead are DX10. So yea, it's more advanced in some ways. [QUOTE="menes777"]Why not bring up how the N64 was supposed to produce SGI like graphics (aka Toy Story like) or how the PS1 didn't have any AA to speak of in any of it's games? Closed systems may be able to temporarily catch up or maybe even surprass the open system, but the open system is always to going to catch up very rapidly or be miles ahead from the beginning.loadedboon

You don't see movie quality games on the pc? Hmmm i must have dreamed playing those FMV adventures back in the day.

Myst a Pc game of 1993

Riven or else Myst 2 a pc game of 1997

Damn i miss those games

[QUOTE="loadedboon"]

[QUOTE="chaplainDMK"] I agree but it ain't the pinnacle of PC RTS graphics... Like i said, Blizzards games are designed to be able to be run on relatively weak systems. I mean one of my friends GPUs got fried (didn't get enough air) and he is running the game quite fine on a intergrated motherboard GPU... TheSterls

I agree with you that it isn't a very demanding game but saying Halo Wars comes close is just :roll::

I know there are much better looking RTS games out there on PC. But still SC2 looks amazing even though it isn't the best looking RTS out there.

LMAO Errrr no SC2 does not look alot better then Halo Wars. I can max SC 2 on a GTX285 my account is Hellrunner and no its not better looking by any means we can post a screenshots all day but its no diffrent then pc gamers coming in here and telling me NFS on pc looks as good as GT5.( LMAO )

SC2 does look a tad better than Halo Wars. Would I say "a LOT" better? Maybe not.

The huge difference though is that SC2 can have a LOT more going on the screen (Many more units. Much MUCH better effects). So yes in a way it does look a lot better because of the far superior effects and amount of units on the screen.

[QUOTE="loadedboon"]

[QUOTE="chaplainDMK"] I agree but it ain't the pinnacle of PC RTS graphics... Like i said, Blizzards games are designed to be able to be run on relatively weak systems. I mean one of my friends GPUs got fried (didn't get enough air) and he is running the game quite fine on a intergrated motherboard GPU... TheSterls

I agree with you that it isn't a very demanding game but saying Halo Wars comes close is just :roll::

I know there are much better looking RTS games out there on PC. But still SC2 looks amazing even though it isn't the best looking RTS out there.

LMAO Errrr no SC2 does not look alot better then Halo Wars. I can max SC 2 on a GTX285 my account is Hellrunner and no its not better looking by any means we can post a screenshots all day but its no diffrent then pc gamers coming in here and telling me NFS on pc looks as good as GT5.( LMAO )

If nothing else (that's one insane IF right there), SC2 has twice the resolution of Halo Wars. I actually, posted a few shots about 2 pages back. Feel free to do a direct comparison. Ah well, here I go:

If those are'nt different, what were all those ps3 vs 360 multiplat comparions for?

Edit: The SC2 ones (by no means to genre leader in terms of gfx) are actual screenshots taken by me. can you say the same about that Halo Wars shot? Do I really have to downscale to show the difference? And yes, they're just a few random shots from a quickload in honour of this thread.

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]Are they? Now I have'nt actually researched this but from having play all 3 games, I'd say that Metro is a lot more up to date in regards to overall quality while the enviroment is a lot more static than Crysis is. As in: Nearly nothing reacts to your presence. when a grenade detonates in Crysis, the sorrounding's get blown up. In Metro, they get a burnt texture.nameless12345

Why not bring up how the N64 was supposed to produce SGI like graphics (aka Toy Story like) or how the PS1 didn't have any AA to speak of in any of it's games? Closed systems may be able to temporarily catch up or maybe even surprass the open system, but the open system is always to going to catch up very rapidly or be miles ahead from the beginning.menes777

Windows bottlenecking use to be true back in the day when 16 MB of RAM cost as much as 8 GB cost now. That different hardware argument is also a very old argument that no longer applies. Have you heard of something called DirectX? The whole point of Direct X is to make the hardware interaction abstract so it won't matter if you have an ATI or Nvidia card. Yes certain driver versions can make certain games unplayable. I recently ran into a problem with Catalyst 10.7 and Plants Vs. Zombies. However, other than I haven't had any problems with any hardware conflicts. That was the days prior to WinXP.

SC2 overall is meh in terms of graphics, certainly not a contender for best graphics. The cutscenes even seemed a little below par in terms of Blizzard quality. Of course the original SC wasn't exactly a show stopper either. I think they could have pumped out a powerhouse in terms of how good the game looks but I think they went for more overall compatibility than looking the shiniest. With a name like SC they probably could have kept the same engine (and added a little shine to it) and made just as much money. Halo Wars on the other hand looks just a few steps away from C&C (yes old school C&C).

[QUOTE="menes777"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"] Read my first post again and try to figure out what my point was.nameless12345

If your point is that sometimes consoles sometimes have better graphics than the PC than I semi-agree about the N64 point. Everything else is too argumentative.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="loadedboon"]

I agree with you that it isn't a very demanding game but saying Halo Wars comes close is just :roll::

I know there are much better looking RTS games out there on PC. But still SC2 looks amazing even though it isn't the best looking RTS out there.

Filthybastrd

LMAO Errrr no SC2 does not look alot better then Halo Wars. I can max SC 2 on a GTX285 my account is Hellrunner and no its not better looking by any means we can post a screenshots all day but its no diffrent then pc gamers coming in here and telling me NFS on pc looks as good as GT5.( LMAO )

If nothing else (that's one insane IF right there), SC2 has twice the resolution of Halo Wars. I actually, posted a few shots about 2 pages back. Feel free to do a direct comparison. Ah well, here I go:

If those are'nt different, what were all those ps3 vs 360 multiplat comparions for?

Edit: The SC2 ones (by no means to genre leader in terms of gfx) are actual screenshots taken by me. can you say the same about that Halo Wars shot? Do I really have to downscale to show the difference? And yes, they're just a few random shots from a quickload in honour of this thread.

The point is SC2 is visually on the same level of HW. It has more going on screen at time ( althogh the shot I posted is pretty mild compared to what can happen) .

Oh is this the BS argument now? Its a 720p image ive played the game thats what it looks like. The point is rather you want to admit it or not the consoles are still pretty competative a hell of alot better then they were last generation. I havent seen a action adventure game on pc yet that holds a candle to GOW3 graphically.

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

LMAO Errrr no SC2 does not look alot better then Halo Wars. I can max SC 2 on a GTX285 my account is Hellrunner and no its not better looking by any means we can post a screenshots all day but its no diffrent then pc gamers coming in here and telling me NFS on pc looks as good as GT5.( LMAO )

TheSterls

If nothing else (that's one insane IF right there), SC2 has twice the resolution of Halo Wars. I actually, posted a few shots about 2 pages back. Feel free to do a direct comparison. Ah well, here I go:

If those are'nt different, what were all those ps3 vs 360 multiplat comparions for?

Edit: The SC2 ones (by no means to genre leader in terms of gfx) are actual screenshots taken by me. can you say the same about that Halo Wars shot? Do I really have to downscale to show the difference? And yes, they're just a few random shots from a quickload in honour of this thread.

The point is SC2 is visually on the same level of HW. It has more going on screen at time ( althogh the shot I posted is pretty mild compared to what can happen) .

Oh is this the BS argument now? Its a 720p image ive played the game thats what it looks like. The point is rather you want to admit it or not the consoles are still pretty competative a hell of alot better then they were last generation. I havent seen a action adventure game on pc yet that holds a candle to GOW3 for ane example graphically.

SC2 is more advanced visually than HW. Thats...not even arguable.

Mafia 2 with PhysX. Way better than GoW3. RE5 even though it has a quite a few ugly parts. Just Cause 2 on PC looks better, and so does Batman: AA

[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]That's not true, in fact, if you read the readme file of the orignial quake they talk about running in Quake GL. Which 3D accelerator card did N64 use, thats what I mean by 3D accelerator cards. And Crysis and Crysis Warhead technically worse, I don't know maybe inside closed space, but that is only on the PC version, consoles it won't even compare. Modded Crysis for sure will beat it.True about different, Quake 3 was the best looking game in 1999 though.nameless12345

I remember reading about GL Quake on the readme files when it came out in 1996. Voodoo 1 came out in 1996, so I would not be surprised if it ran Quake 1. I don't have it with me now but I amconfident people were running GL Quake on Voodoo 1. I will see if I can dig up old readme files. With respect to Shenmue wasn't realeased in 1999. With respect toQuake 3 name me one game that was better than that from 99?

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

If nothing else (that's one insane IF right there), SC2 has twice the resolution of Halo Wars. I actually, posted a few shots about 2 pages back. Feel free to do a direct comparison. Ah well, here I go:

If those are'nt different, what were all those ps3 vs 360 multiplat comparions for?

Edit: The SC2 ones (by no means to genre leader in terms of gfx) are actual screenshots taken by me. can you say the same about that Halo Wars shot? Do I really have to downscale to show the difference? And yes, they're just a few random shots from a quickload in honour of this thread.

ChubbyGuy40

The point is SC2 is visually on the same level of HW. It has more going on screen at time ( althogh the shot I posted is pretty mild compared to what can happen) .

Oh is this the BS argument now? Its a 720p image ive played the game thats what it looks like. The point is rather you want to admit it or not the consoles are still pretty competative a hell of alot better then they were last generation. I havent seen a action adventure game on pc yet that holds a candle to GOW3 for ane example graphically.

SC2 is more advanced visually than HW. Thats...not even arguable.

Mafia 2 with PhysX. Way better than GoW3. RE5 even though it has a quite a few ugly parts. Just Cause 2 on PC looks better, and so does Batman: AA

Mafia 2 with physX vs GOW3 is comparing an apple to an orange you cant logically debate anything its like arguing with a 12 year old.

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

The point is SC2 is visually on the same level of HW. It has more going on screen at time ( althogh the shot I posted is pretty mild compared to what can happen) .

Oh is this the BS argument now? Its a 720p image ive played the game thats what it looks like. The point is rather you want to admit it or not the consoles are still pretty competative a hell of alot better then they were last generation. I havent seen a action adventure game on pc yet that holds a candle to GOW3 for ane example graphically.

TheSterls

SC2 is more advanced visually than HW. Thats...not even arguable.

Mafia 2 with PhysX. Way better than GoW3. RE5 even though it has a quite a few ugly parts. Just Cause 2 on PC looks better, and so does Batman: AA

Mafia 2 with physX vs GOW3 is comparing an apple to an orange you cant logically debate anything its like arguing with a 12 year old.

It's more like comparing a freshly picked apple to an aged, rotting apple.

With respect to Shenmue wasn't realeased in 1999.Xtasy26

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

SC2 is more advanced visually than HW. Thats...not even arguable.

Mafia 2 with PhysX. Way better than GoW3. RE5 even though it has a quite a few ugly parts. Just Cause 2 on PC looks better, and so does Batman: AA

ChubbyGuy40

Mafia 2 with physX vs GOW3 is comparing an apple to an orange you cant logically debate anything its like arguing with a 12 year old.

It's more like comparing a freshly picked apple to an aged, rotting apple.

Yet GOW3 stomps any game on pc in the actionaadventure genre, The games go for2 diffrent looks and the Char modles in GOW along with the animations blow MF2 out of the water. Only thing MF2 has going for it is scale. Lets compare a fighting game to a RTS next lmao.

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

LMAO Errrr no SC2 does not look alot better then Halo Wars. I can max SC 2 on a GTX285 my account is Hellrunner and no its not better looking by any means we can post a screenshots all day but its no diffrent then pc gamers coming in here and telling me NFS on pc looks as good as GT5.( LMAO )

TheSterls

If nothing else (that's one insane IF right there), SC2 has twice the resolution of Halo Wars. I actually, posted a few shots about 2 pages back. Feel free to do a direct comparison. Ah well, here I go:

If those are'nt different, what were all those ps3 vs 360 multiplat comparions for?

Edit: The SC2 ones (by no means to genre leader in terms of gfx) are actual screenshots taken by me. can you say the same about that Halo Wars shot? Do I really have to downscale to show the difference? And yes, they're just a few random shots from a quickload in honour of this thread.

The point is SC2 is visually on the same level of HW. It has more going on screen at time ( althogh the shot I posted is pretty mild compared to what can happen) .

Oh is this the BS argument now? Its a 720p image ive played the game thats what it looks like. The point is rather you want to admit it or not the consoles are still pretty competative a hell of alot better then they were last generation. I havent seen a action adventure game on pc yet that holds a candle to GOW3 graphically.

Halo Wars seems a bit last gen to me tbh. And empty in terms of units. And low res as well.

And that HW shot is probably a bullshot anyway.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"][QUOTE="Xtasy26"]That's not true, in fact, if you read the readme file of the orignial quake they talk about running in Quake GL. Which 3D accelerator card did N64 use, thats what I mean by 3D accelerator cards. And Crysis and Crysis Warhead technically worse, I don't know maybe inside closed space, but that is only on the PC version, consoles it won't even compare. Modded Crysis for sure will beat it.True about different, Quake 3 was the best looking game in 1999 though.Xtasy26

I remember reading about GL Quake on the readme files when it came out in 1996. Voodoo 1 came out in 1996, so I would not be surprised if it ran Quake 1. I don't have it with me now but I amconfident people were running GL Quake on Voodoo 1. I will see if I can dig up old readme files. With respect to Shenmue wasn't realeased in 1999. With respect toQuake 3 name me one game that was better than that from 99?

The Voodoo 1 was limited to a select few back in 1996 and that wasn't until December 1996. I received an "early adopter" offer from Computability because I was one of their valued customers, having spent a lot of moolah on them since my Amiga days. The N64 was already out back in summer of 1996 and the PSX before that. There was a gap of a few months when consoles with 3D-acceleration lorded it over PCs.

Good thing they didn't have many forums like this one back then (plus dialup was dog slow). The flak from the console crowd would've been deafening if something like that occurred now.:lol:

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

Mafia 2 with physX vs GOW3 is comparing an apple to an orange you cant logically debate anything its like arguing with a 12 year old.

TheSterls

It's more like comparing a freshly picked apple to an aged, rotting apple.

Yet GOW3 stomps any game on pc in the actionaadventure genre, The games go for2 diffrent looks and the Char modles in GOW along with the animations blow MF2 out of the water. Only thing MF2 has going for it is scale. Lets compare a fighting game to a RTS next lmao.

Oh really?

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

It's more like comparing a freshly picked apple to an aged, rotting apple.

Eggimannd

Yet GOW3 stomps any game on pc in the actionaadventure genre, The games go for2 diffrent looks and the Char modles in GOW along with the animations blow MF2 out of the water. Only thing MF2 has going for it is scale. Lets compare a fighting game to a RTS next lmao.

Oh really?

JC2 is a sandbox title , along the tlines of GTA4 and AC. its not a hack and slah AV yet 2 totally diffrent genres.

[QUOTE="Eggimannd"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

Yet GOW3 stomps any game on pc in the actionaadventure genre, The games go for2 diffrent looks and the Char modles in GOW along with the animations blow MF2 out of the water. Only thing MF2 has going for it is scale. Lets compare a fighting game to a RTS next lmao.

TheSterls

Oh really?

JC2 is a sandbox title , along the tlines of GTA4 and AC. its not a hack and slah AV yet 2 totally diffrent genres.

you stated it blows any Action Adventure game out of the water on PC. JC2 is an action/adventure game. Batman: AA is an action/adventure game. Both look far ahead of GoW3.

[QUOTE="Eggimannd"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

Yet GOW3 stomps any game on pc in the actionaadventure genre, The games go for2 diffrent looks and the Char modles in GOW along with the animations blow MF2 out of the water. Only thing MF2 has going for it is scale. Lets compare a fighting game to a RTS next lmao.

TheSterls

Oh really?

JC2 is a sandbox title , along the tlines of GTA4 and AC. its not a hack and slah AV yet 2 totally diffrent genres.

It CLEARLY says Action Adventure. You didn't mention hack and slash in your previous post.

I'll give you one thing. You're really good (well at least good at trying) at changing what you mean to say to suit your needs.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="Eggimannd"]

Oh really?

Eggimannd

JC2 is a sandbox title , along the tlines of GTA4 and AC. its not a hack and slah AV yet 2 totally diffrent genres.

It CLEARLY says Action Adventure. You didn't mention hack and slash in your previous post.

I'll give you one thing. You're really good (well at least good at trying) at changing what you mean to say to suit your needs.

[QUOTE="Eggimannd"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

JC2 is a sandbox title , along the tlines of GTA4 and AC. its not a hack and slah AV yet 2 totally diffrent genres.

NVIDIATI

It CLEARLY says Action Adventure. You didn't mention hack and slash in your previous post.

I'll give you one thing. You're really good (well at least good at trying) at changing what you mean to say to suit your needs.

Sometimes a challenge is fun though. That's why I keep feeding the troll.

JC2 is a sandbox title , along the tlines of GTA4 and AC. its not a hack and slah AV yet 2 totally diffrent genres.

TheSterls

Sandbox is more of a philosophy than an actual gaming genre. A Sandbox genre existed on PC but it was basically a space sim. All those games you mentioned are Action Adventures. GOW series are more BEMUPS/Hack and Slash(but Action Adventure is also correct, since most games mix some adventure elements). A good example of a PS3 action adventure game would be Uncharted.

Also it's not a good idea to just go by what one site says the genre is. From what I have seen some sites confuse what the adventure part means in action adventure.

[QUOTE="Eggimannd"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

JC2 is a sandbox title , along the tlines of GTA4 and AC. its not a hack and slah AV yet 2 totally diffrent genres.

NVIDIATI

It CLEARLY says Action Adventure. You didn't mention hack and slash in your previous post.

I'll give you one thing. You're really good (well at least good at trying) at changing what you mean to say to suit your needs.

Im not lying or manipulating anything. You went off on me the other day because i classifed civ as a strategy game which is a TBS instead of a RTS yet its ok to classify JC2 with GOW3? They visually do things completely diffrentand its not even compareable its like comparing a fighting game to an RTS.

I always find the topic of PC graphics V console graphics strange at the least. Has anyone really done a fair comparison. By this I mean, build a PC Rig, with the following components. Core 2 Quad (or i5 Processor) Nvidia 7800 with 256MB 256MB system RAM Blue Ray Drive 250GB HDD Then launch a multi-plat game on it and see how they both fair. I have heard people talk about how they can run a game at HIGH settings on the 7800 card, but my feeling is you put ALL of the hardware (as close as we can match it) into a PC rig and see how it fairs and if someone has done that, then please show a link, show the same image on a FULL HD TV, and we will see the difference. So the same for the 360 and once again see how it fairs. I don't think anyone has done that. They will put these claims up and say the 7800 (which is the same (or similar) card to what is in the PS3 will kill it) Will it, what about with 256 MB of RAM on board as well as only 256MB RAM for the system, see how it fairs. Or compare Crysis (HIGH res and sure it is pretty) against Uncharted 2, but what kind of RIG do you need to run Crysis at full. Not recommended specs, to make it playable, run it at the same framerate as Uncharted 2 runs at. I don't know yet I have not played the game. I am sorry but you can only compare a PC to a console when you don't shift the bar. The same argument could be said for comparing the 360 and the PS3, yes it could, but at least the bar doesn't change with each new game release.mike_on_mic

The big problem with that is the OS RAM usage. Windows takes *alot* more RAM to function that the PS3 OS.

On top of that, console games feature vastly more optimization, and developers will often ignore dated hardware (such as the 7800) in order to focus on more performance oriented systems and it's stability.

[QUOTE="NVIDIATI"]

[QUOTE="Eggimannd"]

It CLEARLY says Action Adventure. You didn't mention hack and slash in your previous post.

I'll give you one thing. You're really good (well at least good at trying) at changing what you mean to say to suit your needs.

TheSterls

Im not lying or manipulating anything. You went off on me the other day because i classifed civ as a strategy game which is a TBS instead of a RTS yet its ok to classify JC2 with GOW3? They visually do things completely diffrentand its not even compareable its like comparing a fighting game to an RTS.

That's why it's debatable if Action Adventure is a real genre or just a mix of two genres. You created the problem yourself when you clasified a BEMUP/Hack and Slash game as an Action Adventure which is probably the most vague genre there is or at least among. For your last example about comparing fighting with RTS: comparing a fighter with a BEMUP would be a better example or a RTS with a RTT could also be another possibility.

If you are confused about the last part of my post then I will explain. Both those games are usually classified as Action Adventures so a difference between their proper subgenres is more proper. Example: Action genre(fighting vs. BEMUP.) Strategy genre(RTS vs. RTT)

[QUOTE="NVIDIATI"]

[QUOTE="Eggimannd"]

It CLEARLY says Action Adventure. You didn't mention hack and slash in your previous post.

I'll give you one thing. You're really good (well at least good at trying) at changing what you mean to say to suit your needs.

TheSterls

Im not lying or manipulating anything. You went off on me the other day because i classifed civ as a strategy game which is a TBS instead of a RTS yet its ok to classify JC2 with GOW3? They visually do things completely diffrentand its not even compareable its like comparing a fighting game to an RTS.

You clearly say YOURSELF that no Action/Adventure game on PC looks as good as GoW3.

I show you Just Cause 2 which is CLEARLY an Action/Adventure genre by GAMESPOT classification.

And then you try to manipulate things by trying to say "Oh but Just Cause 2 ain't really a game like GoW3 blablabla".

Doesn't matter. YOU are the one who said GoW3 owns any Action/Adventure genre on PC and I showed how you were wrong with JC2.

Now take it like a man and freaking admit your defeat instead of trying to manipulate things.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="NVIDIATI"] He'll lie, and manipulate anything he can. If you prove him wrong he'll ignore the post and move onto something else.

Eggimannd

Im not lying or manipulating anything. You went off on me the other day because i classifed civ as a strategy game which is a TBS instead of a RTS yet its ok to classify JC2 with GOW3? They visually do things completely diffrentand its not even compareable its like comparing a fighting game to an RTS.

You clearly say YOURSELF that no Action/Adventure game on PC looks as good as GoW3.

I show you Just Cause 2 which is CLEARLY an Action/Adventure genre by GAMESPOT classification.

And then you try to manipulate things by trying to say "Oh but Just Cause 2 ain't really a game like GoW3 blablabla".

Doesn't matter. YOU are the one who said GoW3 owns any Action/Adventure genre on PC and I showed how you were wrong with JC2.

Now take it like a man and freaking admit your defeat instead of trying to manipulate things.

No because you are comparing games that cant even visually be compared. GOW3 has better characer models , GOW3 has better animations. JC2 has much larger detailed enviorments. You are comparing apples to oranges and making a visual comparison between 2 games that have strenghts in diffrent areas.

[QUOTE="NVIDIATI"]

[QUOTE="Eggimannd"]

It CLEARLY says Action Adventure. You didn't mention hack and slash in your previous post.

I'll give you one thing. You're really good (well at least good at trying) at changing what you mean to say to suit your needs.

TheSterls

Im not lying or manipulating anything. You went off on me the other day because i ****fed civ as a strategy game which is a TBS instead of a RTS yet its ok to ****fy JC2 with GOW3? They visually do things completely diffrentand its not even compareable its like comparing a fighting game to an RTS.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="NVIDIATI"] He'll lie, and manipulate anything he can. If you prove him wrong he'll ignore the post and move onto something else.

NVIDIATI

Im not lying or manipulating anything. You went off on me the other day because i ****fed civ as a strategy game which is a TBS instead of a RTS yet its ok to ****fy JC2 with GOW3? They visually do things completely diffrentand its not even compareable its like comparing a fighting game to an RTS.

Happned with one of the 5 of you maybe it was egg i get you confused a this point.

[QUOTE="Eggimannd"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

Im not lying or manipulating anything. You went off on me the other day because i classifed civ as a strategy game which is a TBS instead of a RTS yet its ok to classify JC2 with GOW3? They visually do things completely diffrentand its not even compareable its like comparing a fighting game to an RTS.

TheSterls

You clearly say YOURSELF that no Action/Adventure game on PC looks as good as GoW3.

I show you Just Cause 2 which is CLEARLY an Action/Adventure genre by GAMESPOT classification.

And then you try to manipulate things by trying to say "Oh but Just Cause 2 ain't really a game like GoW3 blablabla".

Doesn't matter. YOU are the one who said GoW3 owns any Action/Adventure genre on PC and I showed how you were wrong with JC2.

Now take it like a man and freaking admit your defeat instead of trying to manipulate things.

No because you are comparing games that cant even visually be compared. GOW3 has better characer models , GOW3 has better animations. JC2 has much larger detailed enviorments. You are comparing apples to oranges and making a visual comparison between 2 games that have strenghts in diffrent areas.

Overall JC2 is a better technically looking game than GoW3 and that's all that matters when arguing about graphics in System Wars: TECHNICAL graphics.

So once again. You fail and try to run away from admitting defeat.

Look you set yourself up. Made a mistake maybe. All that matters is that you stated "Gow3 stomps any action/adventure game on PC". I proved you wrong by pointing out JC2 which is a action/adventure game and is a overall superior graphical game.

Seriously why the hell can't you admit you're wrong here when you clearly are?

[QUOTE="NVIDIATI"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

Im not lying or manipulating anything. You went off on me the other day because i ****fed civ as a strategy game which is a TBS instead of a RTS yet its ok to ****fy JC2 with GOW3? They visually do things completely diffrentand its not even compareable its like comparing a fighting game to an RTS.

TheSterls

Happned with one of the 5 of you maybe it was egg i get you confused a this point.

Hmm no. That wasn't me either.

[QUOTE="NVIDIATI"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

Im not lying or manipulating anything. You went off on me the other day because i ****fed civ as a strategy game which is a TBS instead of a RTS yet its ok to ****fy JC2 with GOW3? They visually do things completely diffrentand its not even compareable its like comparing a fighting game to an RTS.

TheSterls

Happned with one of the 5 of you maybe it was egg i get you confused a this point.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="NVIDIATI"] ? That never happened with me... You're so full of it...

Eggimannd

Happned with one of the 5 of you maybe it was egg i get you confused a this point.

Hmm no. That wasn't me either.

[QUOTE="Eggimannd"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

Happned with one of the 5 of you maybe it was egg i get you confused a this point.

NVIDIATI

Hmm no. That wasn't me either.

No its pretty much 5 people and whats funny is you jump into the middle of arguments on a regluar basis and only pick and choose what ones to join. So if a rabbid hermit says something that even you dont agree with you stay out of it yet you will jump into another argument and your 2 cents .